Jury goes home without verdict in Rutland slaying case

Monday

Dec 23, 2013 at 5:02 PM

By Gary V. Murray TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

WORCESTER— The prosecutor described him as a cold-blooded killer who knew precisely what he was doing. The defense lawyer said drug intoxication had robbed his client of his ability to form the requisite intent for murder at the time of the crime.

Conflicting portraits of James M. Rutherford emerged during closing arguments Monday morning in Worcester Superior Court, where the 27-year-old Mr. Rutherford, formerly of 600 Main St., is on trial on a first-degree murder charge in the July 2011 slaying of Francis P. Spokis in his Rutland home.

The 12-member jury later deliberated for about 5˝ hours without reaching a verdict. Jury deliberations were scheduled to resume Tuesday.

The six men and six women of the jury began their deliberations after hearing closing arguments by Assistant District Attorney Daniel J. Bennett and Mr. Rutherford's lawyer, Lorenzo Perez, and Judge Janet Kenton-Walker's instructions on the law.

Mr. Spokis, 52, was stabbed and beaten to death during a robbery on or about July 5, 2011, in his home at 120 Wachusett St., Rutland, according to authorities.

Mr. Rutherford, the son of a Worcester police officer, and Lee Anne Chesko, his former girlfriend, are charged with the slaying. Ms. Chesko is awaiting trial. Mr. Perez has raised a diminished capacity defense on Mr. Rutherford's behalf.

In his final summation Monday morning, Mr. Perez told the jury the evidence in the case showed his client was addicted to crack cocaine at the time of the robbery and said his mental state rendered him incapable of forming the requisite intent for a murder conviction.

The jury's verdict options are not guilty, or guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. Mr. Perez did not dispute that Mr. Rutherford took part in the killing, but told the jury a manslaughter conviction would be the appropriate verdict.

"The culpability is still there for a very serious crime, manslaughter," Mr. Perez said.

The maximum sentence for manslaughter is 20 years in state prison. A first-degree murder conviction carries a statutory sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The penalty for second-degree murder is life imprisonment with a possibility of parole in 15 years.

Mr. Perez said his client's diminished capacity claims were supported by the testimony of Dr. Fabian Saleh, a forensic psychiatrist who evaluated Mr. Rutherford and took the stand as an expert witness for the defense.

Mr. Bennett took issue with Dr. Saleh's conclusions and said the evidence in the case warranted a first-degree murder conviction based on all three of the prosecution's theories of the crime, that the killing was premeditated, that it was committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty and that it occurred during the commission of a felony, armed robbery, that is punishable by up to life imprisonment.

Under the latter theory, which is called felony murder, the prosecution need only prove that Mr. Spokis was slain during a robbery in which Mr. Rutherford participated and that Mr. Rutherford had the intent to steal from the victim, the prosecutor said.

Mr. Bennett told the jury Mr. Rutherford's intent to steal was borne out by the fact that he sought out a place to store some of the stolen items, which included jewelry and electronics, before committing the robbery.

Mr. Rutherford is charged both as a principal and as a joint venturer with Ms. Chesko.